UA ‘bitter pill’ sparks PhilHealth loss — SBG

Following the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the constitutionality of unprogrammed funds in the national budget, Senator Christopher “Bong” Go issued a stinging reminder that the technical legal battle is inextricably linked to what he termed the “immoral and unconstitutional” sweep of P89.9 billion in PhilHealth funds.

During the second round of arguments held 21 April, the High Court scrutinized the validity of unprogrammed appropriations (UA) within the 2024, 2025 and 2026 General Appropriations Acts (GAA).

While government officials defended these funds as essential “utilitarian” tools for economic flexibility, budget experts and petitioners warned they have become “black holes” for transparency.

The session focused heavily on whether the Bicameral Conference Committee overstepped its constitutional mandate by inflating the budget beyond the President’s original proposal, a mechanism Go claims mirrors the “financial gymnastics” used to justify the diversion of PhilHealth’s billions to the National Treasury.

Healthcare crisis sequel

Go, who serves as the vice chairperson of the Senate Committee on Health, described the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings as the inevitable “sequel” to the PhilHealth fund controversy.

“While lawyers debate unprogrammed funds at the Supreme Court, let us not forget where this started,” Go said. “The current oral arguments are merely a continuation of our fight against the sweeping of PhilHealth funds.”

The Senator was among the first to sound the alarm on the transfer, acting as an original whistleblower before judicial petitions were filed. He has consistently argued that member contributions are held in trust and must remain dedicated to healthcare services.

“Even before this became a central issue at the Supreme Court, we were the first to raise our voices, stating that touching the funds of the sick is immoral and unacceptable,” Go added. “Money for health must be used for health alone. It isn’t ‘excess’ while many Filipinos still cannot afford their hospital bills.”

First to flag scandal

The controversy traces back to 19 July 2024, when Go first publicly criticized the management of PhilHealth funds and opposed the transfer of supposedly “excess” billions to the National Treasury.

By 30 July 2024, during a Senate Health Committee hearing, Go intensified his stance, famously stating the move might be “legal” through technical loopholes but was “morally wrong.”

The issue reached the judiciary on 2 August 2024, when the first Supreme Court petition was filed challenging the constitutionality of the transfer, followed by additional petitions from advocacy groups in October.

Go emphasized that the legal community’s focus on fiscal space must not overshadow the “human cost” of the fund sweep. He pointed out that the health sector suffered a “double blow,” first, the P60 billion initial sweep, followed by a “zero-budget” allocation for PhilHealth in the subsequent GAA.

“They dealt a double whammy to PhilHealth. They took the remaining funds and then slashed the budget for the following year,” Go lamented.

“While experts exchange legal arguments, I am thinking of the patients who didn’t receive free medicine or couldn’t undergo dialysis because the funds meant for them were gone.”

As the global oil crisis adds further strain to the Filipino workforce, Go concluded with a stern demand for accountability, noting that the funds in question represent the “sweat and hard work” of laborers.

“The Filipino people have not forgotten. There must be accountability,” the Senator declared. “This is the people’s money. This is not just a matter of accounting — it is a matter of accountability to the nation.”

The Supreme Court is expected to continue its deliberation on the petitions, with a ruling potentially redefining how the Philippine government manages unprogrammed funds and special-purpose trust funds in the future.